News of the World's last breath: put the handkerchiefs aside

Sunday tabloid's final edition tries to disguise any villainy in sentimental farewell

News of the World final ever edition. Scores of the paper's post-2006 iniquities have resulted in it paying out thousands in damages. Were these the high standards to which the final editorial refers? Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images

The final edition of the News of the World yesterday unashamedly appealed to the emotions of its audience while casting itself as a victim of circumstances beyond its own control.

In the course of 48 pages celebrating its supposedly finest moments, it sought to play the hero while attempting to disguise its villainy. Indeed, some of the villainy was given a heroic gloss.

Without wishing to dance on a dead newspaper's grave, especially while the body is still warm, it should not be allowed to get away with perpetuating yet more myths amid the cheap sentimentality of its farewell.

Put the handkerchiefs aside to consider the editorial that took up all of page 3: "We praised high standards, we demanded high standards but, as we are now only too painfully aware, for a period of a few years up to 2006 some who worked for us, or in our name, fell shamefully short of those standards.

"Quite simply, we lost our way. Phones were hacked, and for that this newspaper is truly sorry. There is no justification for this appalling wrongdoing. No justification for the pain caused to victims, nor for the deep stain it has left on a great history." This echoes the News International party line that hacking was confined to "a few years up to 2006" and involved just "some" of the staff.

It suggests that none of those staff currently work for the organisation. And it is claiming to have been free of blemishes for the last five years.

Yet this is the newspaper that was forced in 2008 to pay damages of £60,000 for a gross intrusion into the privacy of Max Mosley. Also in 2008, the paper paid damages to film star Rosanna Arquette for falsely claiming she had been a drug addict.

In 2009, it paid damages to the Unite leader Derek Simpson for falsely claiming he had breached union election rules. In 2010, it paid five-figure damages to Sheryl Gascoigne for libelling her over her relationship with her former husband. It was also in 2010 that the paper entrapped the world snooker champion John Higgins in a highly suspect sting operation.

This is a mere random selection from scores of the paper's post-2006 iniquities that resulted in it paying out thousands in damages. Were these the high standards to which the editorial refers?

The page 3 editorial continued: "We hope history will eventually judge us on all our years. The staff of this paper, to a man and woman, are people of skill, dedication, honour and integrity, bearing the pain for the past misdeeds of a few others."

I know some of the staff. And I know many of them are not guilty of any wrongdoing.

However, it's a bit rich to claim integrity while working for a paper that has engaged in the dark arts – entrapment, subterfuge, covert filming, the use of agents provocateur and phone hacking – for the best part of 20 years.

Indeed, the most nauseating spread is that dedicated to the boasts of "award-winning investigations editor" Mazher Mahmood. "I clocked up 250 successful prosecutions," he wrote.

His claims have never been properly checked, and they also include cases where people have been treated leniently by judges because of the controversial methods used by the fake sheikh.

The rest of the souvenir issue took us through historical front pages, back to the paper's broadsheet era, a time when it sold 8.4m copies while covering the news and running readable op-ed pages alongside its titillating court reports.

It is noticeable how that changed dramatically once it went tabloid in 1984.

One interesting page is the November 1999 issue bearing the headline "Archer quits as News of the World exposes false alibi". It was a truly sensational story, exposing the former Tory MP as a liar and perjurer that was to end with Lord Archer going to jail.

That was an example where I thought the paper was wholly justified in its subterfuge and covert taping.

It was a first-class piece of public interest journalism, and it should have been viewed as a triumph for the editor at the time, Phil Hall. In fact, it led to his dismissal in May 2000 because Rupert Murdoch didn't want that Archer scoop published. Hall defied him.

Of course, it was dressed up as a resignation. But it illustrates how, when it comes to the News of the World, the News Corporation boss liked to have his own way.

Dark arts? Murdoch may not be quite as innocent as he would like you to think.

But let me finish on an upbeat note by praising the wit who came up with the souvenir's back page.

On a montage of pictures of dozens of famous sports stars, with the late England football captain Bobby Moore holding the World Cup aloft, is the headline: "They think it's all over... it is NoW".

It's a reminder that, at its best, tabloid journalism has a sparkle.

There was just too little of it in the modern News of the World.

Last edition

Edition no 8,674 of the News of the World may have had a cover price of £1, but some felt that the final paper was worth more. One enterprising soul decided to put a few copies up for auction on eBay for £5.99 each (plus £1.98 postage and packing). According to the seller's blurb, the lot was the final edition of "the Sunday paper that brought scandel [sic] and shame brought to its knees with its own shame after 168 years".

But it was hard to gauge how well the last News of the Screws had gone down. Although Twitter brimmed with reports and pictures of piles of unsold copies from east London to Merseyside, there were plenty of Twitpics of the opposite – not least of sold-out shelves in a newsagent in David Cameron's constituency of Witney.

Those who did snap up the last issue, complete with its 48-page souvenir pullout, may have been disappointed at the lack of vitriolic acrostics and savage hidden goodbyes. Or maybe not. Some pointed out that the quickie crossword contained a few intriguing clues that could be taken as a loose commentary on goings-on at the paper. The clues included "brook", "lamented", "stink", "catastrophe" and "digital protection".

The cryptic crossword also offered food for thought with one clue: "Woman stares wildly at calamity". Sam Jones

•To comment on this story or any other about phone hacking, visit our open thread.